Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harpsichord in popular culture

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harpsichord in popular culture

Harpsichord in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is another article that contains an enormous amount of trivia data which is referenced in any means. Delete per failure of WP:V and it is possibly WP:OR--JForget 23:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge relevant info to Harpsichord Giggy _U^CP 23:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Merge into Harpsichord. No reason to delete this one; I get the idea, it's about songs with a harpsichord piece in them. Of course, if the article had been called "Songs with a harpsichord piece in them" that would be deleted also. Harpsichord is rare enough that there aren't that many notable songs where you hear one, nor a need for a pop culture article. Mandsford 00:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think merging it would make the other article too big. This is just trivia and WP is not a trivia collection. Corpx 01:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this probably comes closest of any of today's nominated IPC articles to having some value, but ultimately it's still a trivia dump. A prose article discussing the rise and fall of the harpsichord as a popular instrument, perhaps something that covers some territory prior to 1950, would no doubt be fascinating. This on the other hand is, to be charitable, not. Otto4711 02:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The topic is not my cup of tea, but take a look at the talk page - at least one reader really liked it. Why cut off such readers' access? Opus33 20:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Someone really likes it is not a valid argument for keeping the article. Otto4711 14:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep as per Opus33 - or merge - as per Giggy and Mandsford. Yes, it's close to listcruft (not strictly policy), but it seems to have some merit to it, and lots of edits by different editors. Keep the discussion open for a while. Can we cross-list this on proposed mergers? Bearian 22:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article is a historical timeline (Category:Timelines). The article doesn't fit Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The article doesn't seem to violate any of the clauses in Wikipedia:No original research#What is excluded? either. Because the facts that make up the article haven't yet been verified in a reliable source doesn't mean they're not verifiable and the article should be deleted. An editor with a bit of research could verify and cite many of the facts in the timeline. I added dates to many of the entries and found references to a harpsichord for many of the recordings listed just with a Google search. It should be tagged as unsourced and tagged for a rewrite to be more encyclopaedic, but not deleted. dissolve^talk 01:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• The article violates the directory of loosely associated topics clause as it is a list of items with nothing in common with one another beyond the presence of a harpsichord. In some cases, not even that, as the article notes It should be noted that many instances of harpsichord sound in popular culture are not from actual harpsichords, but rather are generated electronically by synthesizers. The examples below have not in general been assessed for what was the actual sound source employed. Otto4711 14:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• I wish there were some examples under the directory of loosely associated topics policy. The policy states: "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic". One might consider a list of pop songs written and performed by internationally known people as being famous, and that a timeline shown chronologically does show influence and contribution to a specific subject: the use of harpsichord in popular recordings.dissolve^talk 16:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• But a list of songs with (something that sounds like, but may not be) a harpsichord doesn't tell us anything about either the harpsichord or its use in popular music. Otto4711 23:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• The articles aims, although far from there yet, do fit in line with being "Useful" in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria: 1. The list brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria, and: 2. The list is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced. dissolve^talk 01:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• It is not important that a harpsichord or something that sounds like a harpsichord but isn't was used on a pop song. Otto4711 12:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Of course importance, i.e. "having relevant and crucial value"[1] is completely relative. For those with an interest in harpsichords and/or pop music it very well may be important. dissolve^talk 16:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete After reading this article and the entirety of this discussion, I was on the fence on this one. However, as Dissolve mentioned, it is a timeline of musicians using the Harpsichord, but I can't seem to see how this improves the Harpsichord article. Additionally, the article itself is unsourced. (→O - RLY?) 02:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is merely a list of every occasion a harpsichord is used; grouping them together is OR. Why is it special? Punkmorten 20:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well I doubt it's complete and that every use of a harpsichord is included. What aspect of original research do you consider it?

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

• It introduces a new theory or method of solution;
• It introduces original ideas;
• It defines new terms;
• It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
• It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

The only thing I see that it could possibly be is a synthesis of facts, but it hardly builds a particular [case], it's just a list ordered chronologically. dissolve^talk

• Comment: If the result is delete, I would rather the article was transwikied somewhere than simply lost. A lot of work has gone into articles like these. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 07:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep rename and improve. Popular is not a permanent adjective. The content currently seems to be treatable within a History of the harpsichord. Shyamal 06:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Does history mean documenting every time a musician used the instrument or it was mentioned in a tv show or video game? Corpx 06:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts. Merge anything useful to Harpsichord. The current title and perhaps a good part of the content is definitely unencyclopaedic. Also it is missing citations. I however think, given the activity and interest of some of the editors, that it should have been prodded and given some time before the AfD. Shyamal 06:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.